important changes were also introduced by statutes passed from time to time. The first of them was made by the statute of Westminster the second in 1285. (e) It had by this time, probably, become intolerable, that the goods of a person dying intestate, should be seized by the ordinary, and disposed of as he saw fit, without being subject to the payment of the debts of the deceased. "Cum It was therefore thus laid down in this statute: post mortem alicujus decedentis intestati, et obligati aliquibus in debito, bona deveniant ad ordinarius disponenda, obligeter de cætero ordinarius ad respondendum de debitis quatenus bona defuncti sufficiunt, eodem modo quo executores hujusmodi respondere tenerentur si testamentum fecisset." Sir Edward Coke observes upon this statute, that it was made in affirmance of the common law (ƒ); and it has been seen that an equitable provision to the same effect had been contained in the Great Charter of John. In the turbulent period which had intervened, this had probably been lost sight of. In the 31st of Edward III. two acts were passed of great importance in regard to the law of succession in England. The first of them was for "redressing of extortion in bishop's officers in proving of wills.” (g) In this statute, on the recital, that, "the ministers of bishops, and other ordinaries of holy church, take of the people grievous and outrageous fine for the probate of testaments, and for the making of acquittances thereof, the King hath charged the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the other bishops, that they cause the same to be amended; and if they do not, it is accorded that the King shall cause to be enquired by his justices of such oppressions and extortions, to hear them (e) 13 Edward 1. c. 19. (f) 2 Instit. 397. and determine them, as well at the King's suit, as at the suit of the party, as in old time hath been used.” The next statute which was then passed was very remarkable, being that which first introduced administrations and administrators into the law of England; it is in these (h) terms: "Item, It is acorded and assented, that in case where a man dieth intestate, the ordinaries shall depute the next and most lawful friends of the dead person intestate to administer his goods; which deputies shall have an action to demand and recover as executors the debts due to the said person intestate in the King's Court, for to administer and dispend for the soul of the dead; and shall answer also in the King's Court to other to whom the said dead person was holden and bound, in the same manner as executors shall answer. And they shall be accountable to the ordinaries, as executors be in the case of testament, as well of the time past, as the time to come." Thus the powers which the ordinaries had before exercised by themselves or their own officers, were now to be deputed to the next and most lawful friends of the deceased. This must, at that period, have been an improvement of great importance. The ordinaries, from their high rank and sacred character, must have been exempt from suits (i): it appears, also, from several of the legatine and provincial constitutions, that the extortions were committed more by the officers of ordinaries, than by the ordinaries themselves. After this period, and for a considerable while downward, the, persons deputed by the ordinary were termed executors and executors dative (k); but the word administer having appeared first in this statute, the persons so ap (h) 31 Edw. 3. c. 11. (i) Plowden, supra, p. 12. (k) Snelling's case, 5 Rep. Swinburne, p. 684. pointed were afterwards termed administrators, to distinguish them from the executors of a testament; and this description has now, and for several centuries, been in universal use. In the reign of Henry V. an act was made (1), again taking notice of the oppressive fees exacted for proving of wills, and it was ordained, that ordinaries should take no more for proving of testaments with their inventories, than was taken in the time of Edward III.; but this act was only to last for a year, and was not renewed. Matters remained upon this footing till the act was made in the reign of Henry VIII. (m), as well in regard to the expenses of probates and of letters of administration, as for regulating, in all future cases, to whom letters of administration, in cases of intestacy, should be granted. This act recites the before-mentioned statutes of the 31st of Edward III. and 3d of Henry V., in regard to the expenses of probates, and the oppressions and exactions practised in regard to the same, and "that the said unlawful exactions of the said ordinaries and their ministers be nothing reformed nor amended, but greatly augmented and increased, against right and justice, and to the great impoverishing of the king's subjects."- The act therefore proceeds to lay down rules in regard to the fees of probates and administrations, which were to be observed from the 1st of April, 1536, in time coming. But the most important part of this statute is that which relates to the parties, to whom administration was to be granted, in case of intestacy. Before this period, at common law, no person had a right to obtain administration of the goods and effects of a party deceased; but it (1) 3 Hen. 5. c. 8. (m) 21 Hen. 8. c.5. was in the breast of the ordinary to grant it to whom he pleased. By this statute, however, the ordinary was required to grant the administration to certain connexions of the deceased to the exclusion of all others. Upon this subject the statute enacts: And in case any person die intestate, or that the executors named in any such testament refuse to prove the said testament, then the said ordinary, or other person or persons having authority to take probate of testaments, as is above said, shall grant the administration of the goods of the testator, or person deceased, to the widow of the same person deceased, or to the next of his kin, or to both, as by the discretion of the same ordinary shall be thought good, taking surety of him or them, to whom shall be made such commission, for the true administration of the goods, chattels, and debts which he or they shall be so authorised to minister; and in case where divers persons claim the administration as next of kin, which be equal in degree of kindred to the testator or person deceased, and where any person only desireth the administration as next of kin, where indeed divers persons be in equality of kindred, as is aforesaid, that in every such case the ordinary to be at his election and liberty to accept any being one or mo making request, where divers do require the administration: or where but one or more of them, and not all being in equality of degree, do make request, then the ordinary to admit the widow, and him or them only making request, or any one of them at his pleasure. This statute introduced a vast improvement into the law of succession; and it regulates in regard to the grant of administrations to this day. There were some uncertainties and cases not provided for in this act; and it has been the business of the proper courts to provide remedies for these, as they became evolved in future times. But the greatest alteration in the law of personal suc cession in England, has been that which was made by that well known act termed the Statute of Distributions. (n)The causes which led to the passing of this statute are mentioned briefly by the writers who have treated upon this subject. The ordinary was now obliged to grant the administration to some of the connexions of the deceased; yet whoever took administration was entitled to the surplus of the estate of the deceased, after payment of debts, although the ecclesiastical courts claimed the power of making distribution to the next of kin. The objects, therefore, to be obtained by the statute of distributions were, to oblige the administrator to distribute the surplus of the estate of an intestate, instead of retaining it to his own use, and to fix the rules by which he was to be guided in making such distribution. (0) A case had arisen upon the point, whether the Ecclesiastical Court had the power, or not, of making distribution of the effects of an intestate. Dr. Charles Hughes of London had died worth 12,000l. of personal estate, leaving a son and daughter. (p) Administration was He refused to give granted by the ordinary to the son. his sister any part of the personal estate; and he was thereupon called into the Court Christian by his sister claiming her share of the personal estate of her father. The Ecclesiastical Court appears to have been favourable to this claim; but the case was removed by prohibition into the Court of Common Pleas, and was argued in Trinity Term, 18 Charles II., and in the subsequent term, before Sir Orlando Bridgman Chief Justice, and the other judges of that court. In this prohibition Sir Walter (n) 22 & 23 C. 2. c. 10. (0) Humphrey v. Bullen, 1 Atk. 458. (p) Hughes v. Hughes, Carter, 125. |